15 december 2010

Question to Commissioner Malmström on Wikileaks and Swift

Can EU Commissioner Cecilia Malmström guarantee that Swift data is not used by the US to identify Wikileaks donors?

A couple of months ago the EU concluded and agreement with the US called the Terrorist Finance Tracking Program, or TFTP. It means that data about Europeans’ banking transactions will be transfered in bulk to the US government from the Swift bank data system.

”The European Commission has negotiated on behalf of the European Union an agreement that will increase the security of European citizens while at the same time fully respecting their rights to privacy and data protection”, said Cecilia Malmström, Commissioner for Home Affairs.

The Pirate Party and many other civil liberties organisations were critical of the agreement, since it means that data about private citizens who are not suspected of any crime is being handed out to the US police and security services. We pointed out that once the data has been transferred, EU authorities no longer have any control over how it is used.

The recent events around the Wikileaks whistle-blower site have highlighted the concerns we had when the Swift agreement was signed.

We have seen how the US government has put pressure on Mastercard, Visa, and Paypal to stop doing business with Wikileaks, and to confiscate Wikileaks’ assets. This has been done completely outside the law, before any charges of any crime have even been brought against Wikileaks.

Against this background, how do we know that the US does not use the Swift data to identify people in Europe who have donated money to Wikileaks?

As a member of the European Parliament, I have the right to ask questions to the Commission according Rule 117 of the Rules of Procedure. I have just submitted the following question:

What provisions are there in the recently concluded TFTP agreement to ensure that the US government will not use Swift data to track Europeans who donate money to Wikileaks, and how can the Commission guarantee the enforcement of these provisions?

The answer from the Commissioner Malmström should appear here and be due in six weeks. With the holiday season coming up, this probably means some time in February.

But I have no doubt that Wikileaks will still be in the headlines then as well.

I would have preferred it if the question didn’t specify WL like that; there are more organisations which are perfectly legal/have no formal criminal charges against them that the US government may consider ”questionable” and for which they may be monitoring donations and outspoken advocacy. WL could be used as an example, along the lines of ”In the light of recent events involving Wikileaks..” but we have to distance the discussion from WL specifically and make people, media and politicians realise that this is not an isolated event/organisation but a matter of much wider scope and much greater implications.

But I -am- glad you posed the question nonetheless. I am actually a little apprehensive about visiting my friends in the US right now… I shouldn’t have to be afraid.

Good Question.
Maybe you should ask Ms. Malmström another thing. When can we expect to read our movement-data (and all other related data we wanna share) on WikiLeaks. Or does somebody believe, that this data is safe in american Hands.

Exactly the reason I’ve been afraid to donate to WL: Will I be listed as enemy of the state…
Last time entering USA: my friend was asked just for 4 fingers to be pribted, from me they wanted all 10 fingers. (put tinfoil hat on)My donations to ACLU and EFF noted?(remove tinfoil)

[…] Question to Commissioner Malmström on Wikileaks and Swift Christian Engströn, der Pirat im EU-Parlament, fragt sich: "…how do we know that the US does not use the Swift data to identify people in Europe who have donated money to Wikileaks?" […]

No ”tinfoil hat” is necessary to be in doubt as to what the SWIFT-data will be used for. Consider that the US already has a proven record of knee-jerk reflexes on what their data mining has turned up (the most laughable cases being the monastery of nuns set on a no-fly list due to a clerical error – a lit they remained on for years).

Now consider the following. The bulk financial data not only concerns citizens but will paint a very detailed picture of confidential maneuvers by major european companies in direct confrontation with US business. Any of close to two million people in the US have access/clearance to download, analyse, and freely handle that bulk data – much of which would be worth several hundred millions of dollars on the black market.

I.e. as soon as your data is desireable, it will end up in the wrong hands due to leakage, corruption, or as part of an insider trading scheme. Because it is more or less unavoidable to find two million smart people who can hold gagging bagfuls of money without at least a few of them trying to walk off with it.
Something which is extremely easy to do if all you need is a flash memory to store the lot in.

Wikileaks was a very hefty wakeup call – we know they have received massive amounts of bulk data because they’ve had major newspapers edit and publishing that information. We have absolutely no clue how much bulk data has instead been covertly sold to organized criminals. Given that a single credit card identity is worth between 1-5 USD on the black market, there is ample motivation for committing such a crime relatively free of risk.

Well done C. You specify WL. The question needs to be repeatedly sent to the commission asking for guarantees not only wrt WL but also for all other situations were we don’t want USG to sneak into our clean pants.

……Hamburg Mayor Ole von Beust was cited in a confidential report published first by WikiLeaks and then the New York Times that he had met with Chancellor Merkel after a vote on turning over the data. She was very very angry – angrier than he had ever seen her the diplomatic cable reported over the outcome of the vote.Merkel was particularly irritated with German members of the European Parliament from her Christian Democratic Union CDU and sisterChristian Social Union CSU parties according to the as part of the New York Times cache of cables it calls the States Secrets. These members of the parliament had indicated they would support the turnover of the data. That would show that Germany and Europe were serious about the fight against terrorism even if they had concerns about the United States positions on the privacy of personal data.Beust said that the Chancellor had personally lobbied German members of the two parities to support the agreement but that most ofthem ended up voting against the agreement anyway the cable published by the Times said.The Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunication also known as SWIFT provides messaging formats and services for the electronic transfer of The messages are exchanged by banks asset managers brokers and national and international central securities depositories.For local and international payments information about the ordering customer is disclosed to banks and operators in Switzerland and elsewhere.This information is used to investigate money laundering and terrorism financing.